Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: Improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses

ObjectiveImproved durability of bioprostheses has led some surgeons to recommend biologic rather than mechanical prostheses for patients younger than 65 years. We compared late results of contemporary bioprostheses and bileaflet mechanical prostheses in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement between 50 and 70 years old.MethodsIn this retrospective study, patients received either St Jude bileaflet valves or Carpentier–Edwards bioprostheses. Operations were performed between January 1991 and December 2000, and groups were matched one-to-one according to age, sex, need for coronary artery bypass grafting, and valve size.ResultsFour hundred forty patients were matched, and follow-up was 92% complete, with median durations of 9.1 years for patients who received mechanical valves and 6.2 years for patients who received bioprostheses. The 5- and 10-year unadjusted survivals were 87% and 68% for mechanical valves and 72% and 50% for bioprostheses, respectively (P < .01). Freedoms from reoperation at 10 years were 98% for mechanical valves and 91% for bioprostheses (P = .06). Rates of late stroke or other embolic events and of endocarditis were similar between groups. Hemorrhagic complications necessitating hospitalization occurred in 15% of patients with mechanical valves and 7% of patients with bioprostheses (P = .01). Notably, 19% of patients with bioprostheses were receiving warfarin sodium at last follow-up. After adjustment for unmatched variables, including diabetes, renal failure, lung disease, New York Heart Association functional class, ejection fraction, and stroke, the use of a mechanical valve was protective against late mortality (hazard ratio 0.46, P < .01).ConclusionIn this study, patients aged 50 to 70 years who underwent aortic valve replacement with mechanical valves had a survival advantage relative to matched patients who received bioprostheses. These findings question recommendations of bioprostheses for younger patients and suggest that a randomized trial may be warranted

Dynamic changes in eIF4F-mRNA interactions revealed by global analyses of environmental stress responses

BACKGROUND: Translation factors eIF4E and eIF4G form eIF4F, which interacts with the messenger RNA (mRNA) 5' cap to promote ribosome recruitment and translation initiation. Variations in the association of eIF4F with individual mRNAs likely contribute to differences in translation initiation frequencies between mRNAs. As translation initiation is globally reprogrammed by environmental stresses, we were interested in determining whether eIF4F interactions with individual mRNAs are reprogrammed and how this may contribute to global environmental stress responses. RESULTS: Using a tagged-factor protein capture and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) approach, we have assessed how mRNA associations with eIF4E, eIF4G1 and eIF4G2 change globally in response to three defined stresses that each cause a rapid attenuation of protein synthesis: oxidative stress induced by hydrogen peroxide and nutrient stresses caused by amino acid or glucose withdrawal. We find that acute stress leads to dynamic and unexpected changes in eIF4F-mRNA interactions that are shared among each factor and across the stresses imposed. eIF4F-mRNA interactions stabilised by stress are predominantly associated with translational repression, while more actively initiating mRNAs become relatively depleted for eIF4F. Simultaneously, other mRNAs are insulated from these stress-induced changes in eIF4F association. CONCLUSION: Dynamic eIF4F-mRNA interaction changes are part of a coordinated early translational control response shared across environmental stresses. Our data are compatible with a model where multiple mRNA closed-loop complexes form with differing stability. Hence, unexpectedly, in the absence of other stabilising factors, rapid translation initiation on mRNAs correlates with less stable eIF4F interactions

Priorities for synthesis research in ecology and environmental science

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the National Science Foundation grant #1940692 for financial support for this workshop, and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) and its staff for logistical support.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Priorities for synthesis research in ecology and environmental science

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the National Science Foundation grant #1940692 for financial support for this workshop, and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) and its staff for logistical support.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Revisions to the Classification, Nomenclature, and Diversity of Eukaryotes

This revision of the classification of eukaryotes follows that of Adl et al., 2012 [J. Euk. Microbiol. 59(5)] and retains an emphasis on protists. Changes since have improved the resolution of many nodes in phylogenetic analyses. For some clades even families are being clearly resolved. As we had predicted, environmental sampling in the intervening years has massively increased the genetic information at hand. Consequently, we have discovered novel clades, exciting new genera, and uncovered a massive species level diversity beyond the morphological species descriptions. Several clades known from environmental samples only have found their home. Sampling soils, deeper marine waters, and the deep sea will continue to fill us with surprises. The main changes in this revision are the confirmation that eukaryotes form at least two domains, the loss of monophyly in the Exavata, robust support for the Haptista and Cryptista. We provide suggested primer sets for DNA sequences from environmental samples that are effective for each clade. We have provided a guide to trophic functional guilds in an appendix, to facilitate the interpretation of environmental samples. This revision of the classification of eukaryotes updates that of the International Society of Protistologists (Adl et al., 2012). Since then, there has been a massive increase in DNA sequence information of phylogenetic relevance from environmental samples. We now have a much better sense of the undescribed biodiversity in our environment (Pawlowski et al., 2012; de Vargas et al., 2015). While significant, it still remains a partial estimation as several continents and soils in general are poorly sampled, and the deeper ocean is hard to reach. This new data clarified phylogenetic relationships and the new information is incorporated in this revision

Yield of a second right colon examination during colonoscopy after a first examination using a mucosal exposure device

Background and Aims Double right colon examination during colonoscopy has been advocated to reduce the risk of interval cancer in the right colon. Whether 2 examinations are necessary when the first examination is performed with a mucosal exposure device is uncertain. We documented the rates of missed adenomas, sessile serrated lesions, and hyperplastic polyps after an initial right colon examination by a high-level detector using a mucosal exposure device. Methods At a single tertiary hospital outpatient practice, we prospectively collected data on the yield of a second examination of the right colon after an initial examination by a single high-detecting colonoscopist using a mucosal exposure device. Results During the study period, 1331 eligible consecutive patients underwent colonoscopy. Right colon adenoma, sessile serrated lesion, and hyperplastic polyp miss rates were 15.8%, 14.1%, and 16.7%, respectively. Four percent of patients had adenomas detected in the right colon only with a second examination. Conclusions A second examination of the right colon is warranted, even when using a distal mucosal exposure device to perform colonoscopy